Thursday, 29 November 2012

November 29, 2012 (LD) - "War on Syria: Gateway to WWIII" (118 pages) attempts to cover the intricacies of the West's methods of unconventional warfare and how they've manifested themselves over the last several years, finally miring Syria in a state of war. The book also looks at how the violence in Syria is just one part of a much larger geopolitical strategy, and where it may lead next. "War on Syria" is a free e-book for reading, printing, translating, and sharing - your reading and sharing of this book is the greatest payback possible for the time and effort that has been put into it. If Syria cannot be saved, at least let what is happening to this nation serve as a warning and example to others around the world, still pending Western subjugation, regime change, and exploitation at the hands of the largest corporate-financier interests on Earth, and their myriad of institutions, NGOs, media fronts, and contractors.

I want to thank Nile Bowie (NileBowie.blogspot.com), a frequent contributor to the Land Destroyer Report, for his tireless effort and expediency in compiling, adding to, enhancing, and editing this work. I would also like to thank Eric Draitser of StopImperialism.com who also helped edit the work.Below are several links where you can access the .PDF file. If you have any requests for document hosting sites you would like to see this work appear on, or have problems downloading the book, please contact me at cartalucci@gmail.com.

-Tony Cartalucci

Scribd: (no account necessary to read, but must have Scribd account to download) click here.

Wednesday, 21 November 2012

The issue of civil society groups receiving
foreign funding has been a major point of discussion in Malaysia during recent
times, causing controversy and drawing criticism from activists to members of
Parliament alike. Some activists tend to view Putrajaya’s investigation into
rights advocacy groups like SUARAM (a noted recipient of foreign funding) as a
desperate attempt to stifle dissent and attack civil society. Former PM Mahathir
Mohamad’s has repeatedly warned of a foreign-funded destabilization campaign
aimed at regime change in Malaysia – a claim that has been generally dismissed
by Bersih goers and the like. With the nation’s 13th General Election looming,
some see talk of “foreign plots” as tired rhetoric, while others fail to grasp
the deeper machinations of foreign influence and do little more than finger
pointing at political opponents. In this instance, the pages of a leaked US military
document provide valuable insight into the nature of “foreign plots” potentially
aimed against Malaysia.

“TC 18-01 SPECIAL FORCES UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE” is listed on the US Army’s official website and can only be
accessed by authorized officials within the American government (a leaked copy has been made available and can be viewed by clicking
here). [1] The document is significant
because it provides a step-by-step definition of Washington’s “irregular
warfare” and unconventional warfare tactics. The manual illustrates the sheer
impunity with which the United States conducts its foreign policy, aimed at
illegally interfering into the political affairs of foreign nations with an aim
to destabilize and reorder them to further American economic interests; Dr.
Christof Lehmann describes the manual as:

“…a step by step guide of how to create,
manipulate, co-opt and make use of a countries population, persons of special
interest inside the country as well as expatriates, organizations inside as
well as outside the country, towards a subversion. Beginning with manipulating
dissent into demonstrations, the polarization of a population, riots and armed
insurgencies that require action by security forces, and psychological warfare
by means of media, step by step, in logical sequence, towards a full scale war,
based on humanitarian principles and the pretext of bringing democracy and
freedom.” [2]

The targets of the above
mentioned irregular warfare operations are those states that have been
unwilling to align themselves with American diplomatic and economic interests
or semi-compliant states that are strategically located and abundant in natural
resources. The manual describes meticulously
orchestrated covert operations that are conducted in phases; beginning with
psychologically influencing the target population through
foreign-funded dissident news media organizations. Subsequently, targeted nations are infiltrated to
provide training and equipment to dissident groups, until a political transition
is imposed, by force if necessary. The manual is classified
“Restricted” with a “Destruction Notice“, and for obvious reasons – its pages
lay bare the illegal and brutal nature of US foreign policy by means of
supporting insurgent groups that would otherwise be called “terrorist
organizations” (emphasis added):

“DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Distribution authorized toU.S. Government agencies and their
contractors only to protect technical or operational information from
automatic dissemination under the International Exchange Program or by other
means. This determination was made on 1 August 2010. Other requests for this
document must be referred to Commander, United States Army John F. Kennedy
Special Warfare Center and School, ATTN: AOJK-DTD-SF, 2175 Reilly Road, Stop A,
Fort Bragg, NC 28310-5000.

DESTRUCTION NOTICE: Destroy by any method that will prevent
disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document.

FOREIGN DISCLOSURE RESTRICTION (FD 6):
This publication has been reviewed by the product developers in coordination
with the United States Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School
foreign disclosure authority. This product is releasable to students from
foreign countries on a case-by-case basis only.

The Commander, United States Special
Operations Command (USSOCOM), defines
[Unconventional Warfare] UW as activities conducted to enable a resistance
movement or insurgency to coerce, disrupt, or overthrow a government or
occupying power by operating through or with an underground, auxiliary, and
guerrilla force in a denied area. The intent of U.S. [Unconventional Warfare]
UW efforts is to exploit a hostile power’s political, military, economic, and
psychological vulnerabilities by developing and sustaining resistance forces to
accomplish U.S. strategic objectives. For
the foreseeable future, U.S. forces will predominantly engage in irregular
warfare (IW) operations.”

The ongoing conflict in
Syria and the unrest that overthrew Muammar Gaddafi in Libya in 2011 are examples
of the model proposed by this document being successfully utilized. In both
countries, American organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy
and others both financially and rhetorically supported political opposition and
activist groups. When protests in those countries gained momentum, reports of
violence surfaced, often in the form of sniper fire, targeting both security
personnel and civilians. In Libya, rebel groups were armed by Western nations
despite confirmed reports of jihadist and extremist groups being the central
component of the armed resistance. As a result, these armed militants did
indeed topple the Libyan government, and have since been involved in racially motivated mass killings and the recent murder of US Ambassador Chris Stevens
and four other American personnel in Benghazi. [3] The
same tactics have been used in Syria, where jihadist groups have received weapons from US
allies such as Saudi Arabia and
Qatar, and have reportedly used terrorist tactics such as bomb making
and extrajudicial assassinations. [4] [5] The “Phases
of Unconventional Warfare” are described in the manual and exactly match the US
protocol undertaken in both Libya and Syria:

PHASE
I: Preparation

Resistance and external sponsors
conduct psychological preparation to unify population against established
government or occupying power and prepare population to accept U.S. support.

PHASE
II: Initial Contact

USG [United States Government] agencies
coordinate with allied government-in-exile or resistance leadership for desired
U.S. support.

Malaysia is not Syria or Libya; the social and political systems of
these countries and their resistance movements are highly dissimilar and only
so much can be taken from comparisons of this nature. Even so, it is
essentially confirmed that the agitation Malaysia has experienced is not
intended to promote a genuine democratic framework; its purpose is the gradual
installation of a national government that is friendly to American interests by
coaxing social unrest and shaping popular sentiment. Just as described in Phase
1, “external sponsors conduct
psychological preparation to unify population against established government,”
it can be gathered that this first step has already been attempted. Bersih coalition leader Ambiga Sreenevasan has long admitted
that her organization receives financial assistance from “external sponsors,” namely, the US-based National Democratic
Institute (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI), operated by financier George
Soros.

The National Endowment for
Democracy (NED) also annually provides $100,000 (RM 317,260) to political news
website Malaysiakini, widely considered
to be the nation’s most pro-opposition news outlet. Premesh Chandran, Malaysiakini CEO, is a grantee of George
Soros’ Open Society Foundations and launched the news organization with a
$100,000 grant from the Soros-funded Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA).
NED also provides $90,000 (RM 285,516) to SUARAM. [6] Knowingly,
or unknowingly, these organizations have received financial support from the US
Embassy due to the controversial political discourse they espouse. Of course, the
expression of dissent should never be denied, and although the Najib Razak
administration has begun to move away from Mahathir’s administrative model by
relaxing controls on expression, many still feel more can be done.

If the United States is
pursuing the kind of policy described in the Unconventional Warfare manual, one
can understand how foreign-funded rights advocacy groups may be perceived as
threatening to Malaysian authorities, regardless of the politics and values
they preach. Ostensibly, Malaysian authorities are concerned about the violence
and insurrectionary behavior that have accompanied foreign-funded political
movements in other countries once momentum built around them. Malaysia would
not likely fall victim to an insurgency campaign anywhere near the scale seen
in Syria. However, it would be unwise to dismiss the possibility of seeing the
kind of violence that took shape in Thailand during the political unrest of
2010 if foreign elements continue to pursue “irregular warfare.” The possibility of political instability coming
to fruition during the general election period may factor into explaining why
the current government has not yet declared them.

The International Republican Institute
(IRI) is chaired by US Senator John McCain, an ardent supporter of American and Israeli
militarism, and annually receives
$802,122 (RM 2,544,670) from the NED for its Malaysian projects. McCain’s IRI played a crucial role in casting doubt
on the validity of Russia’s 2011 presidential elections by funding several
US-backed NGOs, particularly GOLOS, an independent electoral commission seeking
to “expose voting irregularities.” The conduct of the organization has
generated widespread criticism from Russian lawmakers and observer groups.
Georgy Fyodorov, chief executive of Russian Observer Association Civil Control
stated:

“They have a clear destabilizing tactic; they are
carefully conditioning the public to hear some ‘breaking’ news of election
fraud. The media will have a field day taping the ensuing clashes between
pro-Kremlin and nationalist youth being dispersed by special police. This kind
of footage would dilute any remaining trust in Russian elections.” [7]

To dilute any remaining trust – that is the principle objective when one attempts
to “conduct psychological preparation to
unify population against established government.” Elections are seen as an
opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of a political candidate or party,
primarily by accusing the electoral system of being unfree or somehow outside
of international norms. In the Malaysian context, ruling authorities have acknowledged
that more could be done to reduce voting irregularities and have begun to work
toward such ends. To accuse Malaysia’s electoral system of being illegitimate
is a cinematic exaggeration, a myth pushed by foul Western endowments and foundations.
Intelligent discontent is the mainspring of civilization, it is irrefutably
valuable and channeling it comes with individual responsibilities. When foreign
governments attempt to harness other people’s dissent for their own objectives,
it is the greatest attack on dissent itself.

Friday, 16 November 2012

“The Bible finds no worse image than
this of the man from the desert. And why? Because he has no respect for any
law. Because in the desert he can do as he pleases. The tendency towards
conflict is in the essence of the Arab. He is an enemy by essence. His
personality won’t allow him any compromise or agreement. It doesn’t matter what
kind of resistance he will meet, what price he will pay. His existence is one
of perpetual war. Israel’s must be the same. The two states solution doesn’t exist;
there are no two people here. There is a Jewish people and an Arab
population... there is no Palestinian people, so you don’t create a state for
an imaginary nation... they only call themselves a people in order to fight the
Jews.” [1]

- Benzion
Netanyahu

The Israeli bombardment of
Gaza being perpetuated under ‘Operation Pillar of Defense’ comes at an
interesting time. Under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak,
the expansion of illegal Jewish settlements into Palestinian lands has
increased at unprecedented rates. Netanyahu’s
administration has approved the construction of 850 settler homes in the
occupied West Bank in June 2012, even after the Israeli parliament rejected a
bill to retroactively legalize some of the existing homes in the area. [2]
The number of Jewish settlers in the West Bank has almost doubled in the past
12 years, with more than 350,000 residing illegally under international law. [3]
While Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman asserts Tel Aviv’s
unwillingness to permit Palestinians any right to return to their lands,
emphasizing, “not even one refugee,”
apartheid enforced on ethnic and religious lines has become a ratified part of
Israeli government policy. [4]
Far-right political discourse that was once considered extremism is now the
status quo in Israel.

While Netanyahu publically
announced support for a Palestinian state on the West Bank, his government has
threaten to end the Oslo
Accords if the United Nations General Assembly granted Palestine with non-member
observer state status. [5]
A panel of Israeli jurists assembled by Netanyahu’s government to determine the
legal status of the West Bank concluded that there is “no occupation” of Palestinian lands and that the continued
construction of settlement outposts are entirely legal under Israeli law, despite
critical international opinion. Netanyahu’s far right-conservative Likud party
was established on the philosophy of Ze’ev Jabotinksy, who called for the
establishment of a ‘Greater Israel,’ a concept embraced by Israeli historian
Benzion Netanyahu, the father of today’s Prime Minister. Under his fathers
influence, Benjamin Netanyahu was indoctrinated in the ideological foundations
of Revisionist Zionism, which promote Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria (Palestine)
and the full biblical land of Israel by contemporary Jews, an oil rich landmass
extending from the banks of the Nile River in Egypt to the shores of the
Euphrates.

As rocket fire hits Tel Aviv
for the first time since the Gulf War, the ongoing siege of Gaza must be seen
as what it is – a premeditated component of Israeli expansionism. Netanyahu was a zealous supporter of former Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert’s 2008-2009 sieges on Gaza known as ‘Operation Cast Lead,’ which killed
over 1,400 Palestinians, while Israel suffered only 13 causalities. [6]
On November 14, 2012, Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) launched an offensive into the
Hamas-controlled Gaza strip and began announcing their progress through an
official Twitter account. IDF forces assassinated a prominent Hamas military
commander, Ahmed Jabari, who was allegedly in possession of a draft copy of a
permanent truce agreement with Israel. [7] The agreement included mechanisms for
maintaining the cease-fire in the case of future military exchanges between
Israel and the Hamas-led political factions of the Gaza Strip. Militants from
the armed wing of Hamas in Gaza retaliated by firing rockets into Israeli
territory, a large percentage of which were intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome air
defense system.

Benjamin Netanyahu used this retaliation to
claim the moral high ground by warning that he will take "whatever action is necessary" to
stop further rocket fire from Gaza into Israel. [8]
IDF officials have called on 30,000 reservists to prepare for a possible extended
ground incursion into Gaza, as IDF forces indiscriminately kill civilians
attempting to strike Palestinian aerial and naval targets. [9]
The Obama administration has condemned Hamas for perpetuating violence, while
Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood government led by Mohamed Morsi recalled Egypt's
ambassador from Tel Aviv. Egyptian Prime Minister Hesham Kandil arrived in Gaza
after the second day of Israeli attacks in a show of support for Palestine. Through
‘Operation Pillar of Defense,’ Israel is targeting the military foundations of
Hamas, while attempting to portray itself as a victim in the international
media. IDF forces dropped thousands of Orwellian leaflets over Gaza, urging
citizens to take responsibility for their own safety, due to Hamas “once again dragging the region to violence
and bloodshed.” [10]

Despite Israel targeting the elected Hamas
government of Gaza, an article in the Wall
Street Journal titled, “How Israel
Helped to Spawn Hamas,” cites a former Israeli official who claims that
Israel encouraged the formation of Islamist groups to counterbalance secular nationalists affiliated with the Palestine
Liberation Organization (PLO). The
Israeli government even officially recognized a precursor to Hamas called
Mujama Al-Islamiya as a charity group, allowing it to build mosques and an Islamic
university. [11] Israel cooperated with the influential Sheikh Ahmed
Yassin, who was opposed to secular Palestinian activists, as he spearheaded the
Sunni Islamist movement that became Hamas. In late October 2012, Gaza’s Hamas
government received Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani,
the Emir of Qatar, for an official visit. As part of an aid development package,
Al-Thani granted Hamas $400 million, at least $150 million of which will go
towards a housing project in southern Gaza – it would be reasonable to assume
that large portions of that aid would be invested in defense. [12]

The support given to Hamas
by Qatar must be understood through the context of its engagement in Syria. The
New York Times articled titled, “Rebel
Arms Flow Is Said to Benefit Jihadists in Syria,” states that the arms
being shipped to Syria by Saudi Arabia and Qatar are being used to bolster
jihadists and al-Qaeda affiliated groups attempting to topple the government of
Bashar al-Assad. [13]
Qatar has held numerous meetings of US-backed Syrian opposition leaders and
hosts a critical American military air base at Al-Udeid, west of the capital,
Doha. Qatar has also allowed the establishment of a Brooking Institute center
on its territory. Brookings’ Saban Center for Middle East Policy published “Saving
Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change” in March 2012, and the
directives described in the report have ostensibly become the policy of allied
Western and Gulf countries aiming to topple the Syrian government. The Saban
Center that published the report was established in 2002 when Israeli-American mogul
Haim Saban pledged nearly $13 million to the Brookings Institution in an
attempt to influence pro-Israeli policy. [14]

Despite paying lip service
to the Palestinian cause, Qatar is supporting policy engineered to give Israel
a pretext to consolidate its power. Both Qatar and Saudi Arabia have cooperated
with the United States and Israel by exporting the Salafist ideology that is so
prominent among radical rebel fighters in Hamas and the Free Syrian Army, and
using their enormous oil wealth to fund and arm these movements. An unapologetic
Op-Ed written by Israeli columnist Guy Bechor titled, “Dangers of a
Palestinian state,” bemoans the possibility of an independent Palestine, in
fear of the nation becoming a hub for extremist violence:

“A sovereign Palestinian state will
immediately absorb 700,000 Palestinians who are living in terrible conditions
in Syria, another 750,000 Palestinians who currently live in Lebanon and
hundreds of thousands of others who will flock to the new state from all over,
because to them the West Bank and Israel are America – just ask the African
infiltrators. Due to the ‘Arab Spring,’ Syria and Lebanon would gladly kick the
Palestinians out, and the Palestinian state would welcome them with open arms
in order to change the demographic reality on the ground. Qatar and Saudi
Arabia would fund the entire exodus.

Thus, the Palestinian state would
become one of the most densely populated areas in the world and pose a direct
security and demographic threat to Israel. In other words, in the near future
we may see hundreds of thousands of Palestinians settling in the West Bank.
Some of them are among the most dangerous people in the Middle East: Salafis,
members of armed Syrian and Lebanese militias, as well as members of various
jihadi groups. They will settle in places that overlook Haifa, Tel Aviv, Ben
Gurion Airport and Jerusalem. The demographic balance in this region will be
changed forever. Our lives will become a Syrian-style nightmare.” [15]

In 1952, Israeli Defense
Minister Moshe Dayan spoke ardently of Tel Aviv’s ultimate goal, the creation
of ‘an Israeli empire’ – today, Netanyahu has led his administration with
megalomaniacal hubris, and has emphasized a messianic-catastrophic worldview
where Israel is “the eternal nation.” [16]
Indeed, a Salafist-dominated Palestine would cause troubles for Israel, and it
provides a much-needed pretext for Israel to militarily engage with Palestine
groups, with the eventual goal of recapturing their land for Jewish settlement.
‘Operation Pillar of Defense,’ launched just months away from Israel’s
elections, is a calculated component of the Netanyahu government’s strategy to
topple Hamas and continue absorbing Palestinian territory. Decades of
occupation and apartheid have shaped the current scenario; Israel has
dehumanized an entire people by seizing their land and forcing them into
prison-like ghettoes. Adherents to political Zionism have shown contempt for a
genuine political solution to the Palestinian conflict, and the Netanyahu
administration is poised to crush all opposition to the Jewish state.

Amid reports of rocket fire
striking Jerusalem, it is clear that the Israeli response will be swift and
unforgiving. While the historic plight of the Palestinian people cannot be
ignored, the conduct of Hamas is counter-productive and radical, despite the
Israeli firepower being exponentially more destructive. The siege on Gaza is an
impetus to consider Henry Kissinger’s prediction, “In 10 years, there will be no more Israel.” Sixteen US
intelligence agencies that collectively issued an 82-page analysis titled,
“Preparing for a Post-Israel Middle East,” concluded that Netanyahu’s Likud
coalition has enthusiastically condoned and supported illegal settlements,
while enforcing an apartheid-style infrastructure upon Palestinians. [17]
Israel, the only nuclear-armed country in the Middle East, has all the
attributes of an international pariah state and its current path is
unmaintainable. If Israel devastates Gaza, the backlash would create momentum
that threatens the very existence of the Jewish state. Under Bibi’s watch,
Israel will either continue to enforce the ideological tenants of political
Zionism on its neighbors, or die trying.

Tuesday, 13 November 2012

As China’s 18th Communist
Party Congress draws to a close, the world’s most populous nation prepares to install
the country's fifth generation of leadership since the Chinese Revolution of
1949. Despite overseeing a stringent police state with heavy limitations on
political expression, China’s leadership have taken the nation from starvation
to space travel in just a few decades, lifting approximately 600 million people
out of poverty. [1]
Of course, the Communist Party still has a fair share of trouble on its hands;
managing an economic slowdown, finding ways to raise incomes while keeping
production costs competitive, and dealing with radical pro-secessionist
sentiment in Tibet and Xinjiang. Undoubtedly, China’s leadership has maintained
its legitimacy by overseeing massive economic growth – its inability to
continue on such a path would ultimately create trouble for the Communist
Party. Chairman Mao once preached, “An
army of the people is invincible!” – hence, China spends an astounding $111
billion on internal security, more than what is allocated to the People’s
Liberation Army. [2]

President Hu Jintao’s
administration oversaw the construction of new infrastructure and high-speed
rail networks, the rise of emerging provincial metropolises such as Shenzhen
and Chongqing, and China’s lucrative economic engagement with Africa. During an
address at the Party Congress, President Hu hinted at some kind of reform to
the existing system:

"We must continue to make both
active and prudent efforts to carry out the reform of the political structure,
and make people's democracy more extensive, fuller in scope and sounder in
practice; however, we will never copy a Western political system." [3]

It remains to be seen
exactly what kind of “democracy” President Hu is referring to, however it is
apparent that China’s leadership recognizes the need to address the complete lack
of public participation in the political direction of the country. Hu spoke of
“diversifying the forms of democracy” and “democratic elections,” and with
that, one would hope for the incremental relaxation on political expression and
dissent.

In combating the severe
wealth gap between the rich and poor, President Hu has also called for China to
double its 2010 GDP and per capita income for both urban and rural residents by
2020, the first time that per capita income has been included in the country’s economic
growth target. [4]
Hu also called for the rapid modernization of national defense and armed
forces, and the need to build China into a maritime power to protect its marine
resources and interests. [5]
Additionally, Hu praised the pro-autonomy policies of the "one country,
two systems" arrangement, the need for integrating urban and rural
development, and the possibility of military cooperation with Taiwan. [6]
Of course, Hu himself will not be at the helm to steer China into its planned
trajectory; it is safely assumed that Xi Jinping and his designated deputy, Li
Keqiang, will be installed as president and premier in March 2013.

Xi Jinping is noted for
ushering in positive economic reforms in the coastal province of Zhejiang,
where GDP has grown by 10% annually over the past 30 years through bolstering small-scale
entrepreneurs, providing supportive credit to private ventures, and governing
with very little intervention in firm management. [7]
Xi is the son one of the Communist Party's founding fathers, Xi Zhongxun, and
was banished to labor in the remote village of Liangjiahe as a teenager during
the Cultural Revolution before studying chemical engineering at the elite Tsinghua
University in Beijing. Xi belongs to the ‘princeling’ faction, the offspring of
party veterans who favor crony-capitalism by steering economic growth with high
levels of state intervention, many of whom (such as Bo Xilai) champion a
revival of Maoist socialism with contemporary values. Xi will be the first
‘princeling’ in the seat of power and it is unclear if his policies will
reflect the governing style of others in his faction, or that of his own
approach of adopting lesser government intervention. Xi appears to relate
little to Maoist policy, only to the nostalgia of singing red songs and using
the Chairman’s aphorisms. [8]

Incoming premier Li Keqiang,
who also toiled in the countryside during the Cultural Revolution, is from the ‘tuanpai’
faction. The ‘tuanpai’ have come from lesser-privileged backgrounds and
have been groomed for leadership through the Communist Youth League; the
faction is more focused on populist policies, rural development, and improving
the conditions of farmers and migrant workers. The ‘princelings’ orbit around
former President Jiang Zemin, while the ‘tuanpai’ favor the direction
taken under Hu Jintao; the incoming administration has likely been selected to
strike a balance between the two factions. A more dismissive analysis of these
factional differences by US-based Chinese dissident Yu Jie could potentially be
more accurate:

“People say Hu and Xi belong to
different political factions. They say Hu comes from the Communist Youth League
and is therefore more populist, whereas Xi, because he represents the
"princelings" -- sons and daughters of high officials -- works in
service of the wealthier coastal provinces. I think they're not that
dissimilar. No matter if it's Hu or Xi, they're still only representative of
the few-hundred families who make up the Chinese aristocracy. They are not in
office thanks to a Western-style election, but are the products of a black-box
operation. They didn't rise because they're clever and capable, but precisely
because they're mediocre. They are where they are today because they are
harmless to the special interest groups that run China.” [9]

Since a large demographic of
people in China have benefitted from economic development, many have become
complacent or exorbitantly wealthy, and are generally uninterested in political
activism. While public trust in the government may be higher today than in
1989, the new leadership has a chance to rebuild public confidence by raising
per capita incomes and loosening restrictions on expression. If Xi governs the
country using the “Zhejiang Model” and supports local entrepreneurship, this
would help reduce the wealth gap and wouldn’t necessarily hinder the extraordinary
monopoly profits of China’s state-owned enterprises. China has avoided the
mistake of the Soviet Union when it attempted to reform politically before
doing so economically, however it still remains unclear if the Communist Party
is willing to engage in any meaningful reform of their political system.

As the United States shifts
its economic and military focus to the Asia Pacific, the question of Sino-US
relations under the Xi Administration is an important one. Beijing’s desire to
flex its maritime muscle and exercise its sovereignty over disputed territories
in the South China Sea will certainly not sit well with the Obama administration,
which has ostensibly adopted a policy written about by American foreign policy
theoreticians such as Robert Kagan, who has argued in favor of pressuring China
through territorial containment. There are a myriad of ways in which the United
States can accomplish these goals; it is more likely that Washington will
continue supporting dissident groups and attempting to hamper China’s overseas
development projects, rather than engage in any military exchange. The Korean
Peninsula remains a tense flashpoint capable of drawing both the United States
and China into military conflict. The incoming Xi administration must be a
mediator; it should more adamantly oppose the US military presence in South
Korea and more actively assist economic development and social programs in
North Korea. Xi Jinping is known to be a straight talker of sorts, and
Washington can likely expect less diplomatic rhetoric from Beijing if it
continues its current policy:

"Some foreigners with full bellies
and nothing better to do engage in finger-pointing at us. First, China does not
export revolution; second, it does not export famine and poverty; and third, it
does not mess around with you. So what else is there to say?" [10]

CONTACT

ABOUT

Nile Bowie is an independent journalist and political analyst based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. His articles have appeared in numerous international publications, including regular columns with Russia Today (RT) and newspapers such as the Global Times, the Malaysian Reserve and the New Straits Times. He is a research assistant with the International Movement for a Just World (JUST), a Malaysian NGO promoting social justice and anti-hegemony politics. He can be reached at nilebowie@gmail.com.